Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on October 08, 2015, 07:42:42 AM
-
Griff,
You maintain that the traditional Catholic clergy are the hierarchy yet the seemingly most knowledgeable people among us like John Lane and John Daly beg to differ.
They claim (I think, please correct me if I am wrong anyone) that the traditional clergy are not the hierarchy because:
1. The traditional clergy do not have the Papal mandate
2. They have not be appointed to a canonical office.
3. They have not been assigned to a territory.
What say you Griff?
-
I believe Griff is too busy to respond. I'll give my less informed response and see if we can get clarity, another forum keeps locking the thread before it can get off the ground. I want those to participate who are not wed to their opinion but are open to truth and willing to grant any legitimate point the other side makes. This is not about winning an argument but discerning the truth.
To make the debate clear we need to define certain terminology. The crux of the dilemma comes down to where the Church is. We all agree that there must be one valid formal successor to the Apostles with habitual jurisdiction (over his flock?). But I want to make sure we have the terminology correct before we debate so we all (supposing anyone even participates) know what we are talking about.
We are speaking of "hierarchical Bishops" which are:
Apostolic Successors (formal)
with
Ordinary jurisdiction
Am I correct the the hierarchy must have the above two qualifications to qualify?
Can someone give me a definition of "Apostolic Successors" and "Ordinary jurisdiction" an exact meaning describing with this is in regards to the visible hierarchy of the Church?
My response to the common objection that the hierarchy is not composed of, at least in part, of the [traditional] Catholic clergy we are aware of and utilize for the Sacraments who are unquestionably validly consecrated and ordained, profess the faith and are willing to submit to any valid ecclesiastical authority is as follows:
The Papal mandate has been implicit in the past why what definitive proof is there that it is not implicit now?
The fact that they have not been appointed to an ecclesiastical office (if in fact this is the case) is ecclesiastical law meant for normal times.
Territorial jurisdiction is not Divine Law. Their jurisdiction is over souls and not land with boundaries.
Okay please verify or straiten me out.
Catholics of good will need to come to the truth on this issue as mistaken views lead to people depriving themselves of the Sacraments (Home Alonism) or being scared back into the Novus Ordo.
-
Does Griff Ruby even post here?
-
Is there a Catholic source that says ordinary jurisdiction is obtained by being consecrated by a bishop with a papal mandate?
-
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Encyclopedia/Apostolic_Succession.html
(from Commentary on Canon Law)
The power of jurisdiction or government which is in the Church by divine institution, is divided into that of the external forum and that of the internal forum, or the forum of conscience; and the latter is either sacramental or extra-sacramental (c. 196).
In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209).
As successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has the primacy not merely of honor but of jurisdiction over the universal Church (c. 218).
Subject to an essential dependence on the Pope, the council has supreme power over the entire Church; but there is no appeal from the Pope to the council (c. 228).
-
I am very pleased that some are posting here. I do hope this thread is still alive when I come back Tuesday morning.
I believe Griff has only posted once in the history of Cath Info, I'm hoping he will again but am not sure if he will.
I have once question to ask before I go before I post again on Tuesday.
Did the traditional Catholic community which we are a part of start from scratch or did it continue the Catholic Church?
Please give reasons, especially pertaining to Divine Law as to why the traditional Catholic clergy which we are familiar with cannot be the Catholic hierarchy.
Thanks again for posting here. I hope this thread is rather interesting when I come back and I hope Griff will accept my challenge.
-
Is there a Catholic source that says ordinary jurisdiction is obtained by being consecrated by a bishop with a papal mandate?
Good question. I'm looking for the answers. Not pretending to know them. That is also why I want to be clear with the terminology.
What does the papal mandate provide?
Formal Apostolicity? When I first looked into this issue the big objection against the [traditional] Catholic clergy we know of not being the hierarchy is because they did not have the Papal mandate. Does anyone know what that objection is based upon?
-
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Encyclopedia/Apostolic_Succession.html
(from Commentary on Canon Law)
The power of jurisdiction or government which is in the Church by divine institution, is divided into that of the external forum and that of the internal forum, or the forum of conscience; and the latter is either sacramental or extra-sacramental (c. 196).
In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209).
As successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has the primacy not merely of honor but of jurisdiction over the universal Church (c. 218).
Subject to an essential dependence on the Pope, the council has supreme power over the entire Church; but there is no appeal from the Pope to the council (c. 228).
Does this speak for or against the [traditional] Catholic clergy we know of not being a part of the hierarchy? If so can you please elaborate. I am not well versed in this but desperately would like to learn. It might take some patience as you wait for me to grasp some points.
-
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Encyclopedia/Apostolic_Succession.html
(from Commentary on Canon Law)
The power of jurisdiction or government which is in the Church by divine institution, is divided into that of the external forum and that of the internal forum, or the forum of conscience; and the latter is either sacramental or extra-sacramental (c. 196).
In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209).
As successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has the primacy not merely of honor but of jurisdiction over the universal Church (c. 218).
Subject to an essential dependence on the Pope, the council has supreme power over the entire Church; but there is no appeal from the Pope to the council (c. 228).
Does this speak for or against the [traditional] Catholic clergy we know of not being a part of the hierarchy? If so can you please elaborate. I am not well versed in this but desperately would like to learn. It might take some patience as you wait for me to grasp some points.
Off the cuff, I would suggest that this supports the "[traditional] Catholic clergy". Archbishop Thuc had enduring papal mandate, and Archbishop Lefebvre's position seems very reasonable given his position in the Church and experience at the council. In my opinion, Apostolic Succession was preserved through the crisis.
Jurisdiction, in this time of common error, is supplied by the Church. I would assume jurisdiction over the universal Church is precluded by the condition of sede vacante.
As St. Gelasius writes: "It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration." [Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.]
-
LOT, I don't think Griff Ruby posts here. I suggest you go to http://tedeum.boards.net/ (http://tedeum.boards.net/) and post your challenge there because I know that he posts on that forum. I believe his username is ubipetrus or something like that.
-
Over on that forum he is involed in a continuous argument over the same question you brought up here with other posters there so you could join in on the fun.
-
I think I will be posting here now more. It has become clear to me that, while there are some sincere souls who seem at least somewhat open to the truth, there are far too many outright heretics who are so committed to their Church-denying error and who keep dominating and ruining threads through sheer numbers of them, not with meaningful challenges based on doctrinal sources, but with absurd ipse dixits which they continually expect people to just accept as being with some sort of magisterial authority (even while denying such authority even exists - go figure).
All I can hope is that here the inquiry will be more free and open than it was on Te Deum (or might I say "tedium" for proving the obvious over and over again has become tedious and perhaps even somewhat counterproductive as it brings out all the paid Novus Ordo trolls who actually no more believe what they are posting than I do).
-
Off the cuff, I would suggest that this supports the "[traditional] Catholic clergy". Archbishop Thuc had enduring papal mandate, and Archbishop Lefebvre's position seems very reasonable given his position in the Church and experience at the council. In my opinion, Apostolic Succession was preserved through the crisis.
Jurisdiction, in this time of common error, is supplied by the Church. I would assume jurisdiction over the universal Church is precluded by the condition of sede vacante.
As St. Gelasius writes: "It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration." [Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.]
Yes, it is a docuмented fact that each of Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre (and bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez Y Gonzales) went to great lengths to insure that far more than a mere materially valid succession would be transmitted to the bishops they consecrated for the good (and whole future) of the Church. The St. Gelasius quote is certainly a good one, and one which reminds us of something so basic that some have forgotten it.
The teaching of the Church is quite decidedly on the side of the apostolic authority of our familiar traditional clerics, for the alternatives are truly unacceptable, doctrinally speaking (Church no longer exists, Church hidden in an invisible manner within the Novus Ordo, Church existing only in unknown and remote "forgotten" corners of the earth which no one can find, Church relegated to what few areas an Indult or Motu "Extraordinary form" might be permitted, Novus Ordo apparatus as the Church in any sense, etc.)
The following docuмent actually constitutes a "crash course" in all the relevant ecclesiological doctrines which despite the denials of some still apply to our age as they must indeed apply to all ages, no matter how difficult: http://www.the-pope.com/blog.pdf
I'd like to see if anyone else can come up with an ecclesiology which fits to the eternal ecclesiological doctrines, the recent and current historical facts (Vatican II, etc.), and can also explain how the Church still existed as a visible and Catholic society, bearing all four marks, throughout this whole period.
-
Well, it finally happened. The other forum has finally marked itself as being non-Catholic. The heretics have completely taken over there. Oh well, time to shake the dust off my feet.
-
Off the cuff, I would suggest that this supports the "[traditional] Catholic clergy". Archbishop Thuc had enduring papal mandate, and Archbishop Lefebvre's position seems very reasonable given his position in the Church and experience at the council. In my opinion, Apostolic Succession was preserved through the crisis.
Jurisdiction, in this time of common error, is supplied by the Church. I would assume jurisdiction over the universal Church is precluded by the condition of sede vacante.
As St. Gelasius writes: "It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration." [Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.]
Yes, it is a docuмented fact that each of Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre (and bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez Y Gonzales) went to great lengths to insure that far more than a mere materially valid succession would be transmitted to the bishops they consecrated for the good (and whole future) of the Church. The St. Gelasius quote is certainly a good one, and one which reminds us of something so basic that some have forgotten it.
The teaching of the Church is quite decidedly on the side of the apostolic authority of our familiar traditional clerics, for the alternatives are truly unacceptable, doctrinally speaking (Church no longer exists, Church hidden in an invisible manner within the Novus Ordo, Church existing only in unknown and remote "forgotten" corners of the earth which no one can find, Church relegated to what few areas an Indult or Motu "Extraordinary form" might be permitted, Novus Ordo apparatus as the Church in any sense, etc.)
The following docuмent actually constitutes a "crash course" in all the relevant ecclesiological doctrines which despite the denials of some still apply to our age as they must indeed apply to all ages, no matter how difficult: http://www.the-pope.com/blog.pdf
I'd like to see if anyone else can come up with an ecclesiology which fits to the eternal ecclesiological doctrines, the recent and current historical facts (Vatican II, etc.), and can also explain how the Church still existed as a visible and Catholic society, bearing all four marks, throughout this whole period.
Thank you Griff for posting here. I for one can not come up with an ecclesiology that teaches that our hierarchy must be those who are not the Catholic clergy we are aware of.
-
Over on that forum he is involed in a continuous argument over the same question you brought up here with other posters there so you could join in on the fun.
Thank you for that. It seems more like they assert something is dogmatic (which is not proven) claim if you disagree with them you are a heretic and are threatened with a ban, then if he seems to be making some progress the thread gets locked or disappears. This has happened over and over again to where I can no longer give them the benefit of the doubt nor trust anything they say on that thread. I would only be interested in conversing with some of the sincere individuals privately or over on this site who seem knowledgeable on the topic, I have offered to e-mail them privately but none of them have taken me up on it. I'm done with public threads over there (for the most part - he said) SVs should be familiar with that type of treatment on other forums. If your SV your crazy = if you believe the hierarchy if composed of the Catholic clergy we are aware you are bonkers type of thing. You are wrong because we say you are and if you start making sense we'll squash you. I really over-estimated that blog. I speak of the two of the "moderators" in particular. They are neither neutral nor moderate. They resort to silly and petty tactics both privately and publicly. It is said because the have many good traits as well. They seem sincere. I consider the worst moderator as a better friend. But when it comes to moderating that guy needs to look for another job. The other one is full of himself as many of us are. If you disagree with him you are wrong and he is right even though he has been wrong about the current crisis many times in the past. He threatens with bans just as easily as he breaths. I was shocked when I first encountered this. He improved a little over the past year but he just needs a little nudge buy someone and he quickly locks the thread or bans someone. Yeah, that forum does not have my respect. Pity that, just when I thought all SVs were perfect.
Matthew is very tolerant of SVs here and does not lock everything in site or call everyone heretics as is done over there. The idea that the only Catholic clergy that we know of as being a part of the Catholic hierarchy is not consider lock-worthy, banable or heresy over here as far as I know. So the opportunity exists here for a fulfilling discussion on the debate. For instance where does divine law teach the hierarchical Bishops must be over a certain portion of land in order to be legitimate. This is difficult for me to conceive. If such were the case then would would happen if we were moved of the land with territories to space for instance in a vessel? During and interregnum? I thought jurisdiction was over souls. Sure, normal times you can tie it to territory under ecclesiastical law, but can it be maintained that this must be done, regardless of the circuмstances under "divine law"? That makes is seem as if the land is more important than souls. Insisting that it must be over land by Divine Law regardless of where the souls are located? Hard to fathom. Some lay "expert" must have invented that.
What territories do the speak of? The Novus Ordo "dioceses"? They do not answer the question.
-
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Encyclopedia/Apostolic_Succession.html
(from Commentary on Canon Law)
The power of jurisdiction or government which is in the Church by divine institution, is divided into that of the external forum and that of the internal forum, or the forum of conscience; and the latter is either sacramental or extra-sacramental (c. 196).
In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209).
As successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has the primacy not merely of honor but of jurisdiction over the universal Church (c. 218).
Subject to an essential dependence on the Pope, the council has supreme power over the entire Church; but there is no appeal from the Pope to the council (c. 228).
Does this speak for or against the [traditional] Catholic clergy we know of not being a part of the hierarchy? If so can you please elaborate. I am not well versed in this but desperately would like to learn. It might take some patience as you wait for me to grasp some points.
Off the cuff, I would suggest that this supports the "[traditional] Catholic clergy". Archbishop Thuc had enduring papal mandate, and Archbishop Lefebvre's position seems very reasonable given his position in the Church and experience at the council. In my opinion, Apostolic Succession was preserved through the crisis.
Jurisdiction, in this time of common error, is supplied by the Church. I would assume jurisdiction over the universal Church is precluded by the condition of sede vacante.
As St. Gelasius writes: "It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration." [Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.]
This seems like a common sense answer which is accurate. I'm not sure how the hierarchy could be any other than the Catholic clergy that continued the Church. Very well stated.
-
The crybaby moderator from another site has come on this site and given me down-thumbs it seems. I hope she still is not crying.
-
I'm done with public threads over there (for the most part - he said) SVs should be familiar with that type of treatment on other forums. If your SV your crazy = if you believe the hierarchy if composed of the Catholic clergy we are aware you are bonkers type of thing. You are wrong because we say you are and if you start making sense we'll squash you. I really over-estimated that blog. I speak of the two of the "moderators" in particular. They are neither neutral nor moderate. They resort to silly and petty tactics both privately and publicly. It is said because the have many good traits as well. They seem sincere. I consider the worst moderator as a better friend. But when it comes to moderating that guy needs to look for another job. The other one is full of himself as many of us are. If you disagree with him you are wrong and he is right even though he has been wrong about the current crisis many times in the past. He threatens with bans just as easily as he breaths. I was shocked when I first encountered this. He improved a little over the past year but he just needs a little nudge buy someone and he quickly locks the thread or bans someone. Yeah, that forum does not have my respect. Pity that, just when I thought all SVs were perfect.
The most recent ban there was for publicly criticizing the forum and moderators on another forum (presumably here). That seemed rather odd to me, since they routinely allow criticism of other posters and forums. They apparently take the position that it is wrong to do it to them but it is fine when they do it to others.
In contrast, while Cathinfo allows a lot of latitude in criticizing other posters and forums, I have never seen anyone banned for what he said about Cathinfo on another forum. This seems to me to be a more internally consistent approach.
-
I'm done with public threads over there (for the most part - he said) SVs should be familiar with that type of treatment on other forums. If your SV your crazy = if you believe the hierarchy if composed of the Catholic clergy we are aware you are bonkers type of thing. You are wrong because we say you are and if you start making sense we'll squash you. I really over-estimated that blog. I speak of the two of the "moderators" in particular. They are neither neutral nor moderate. They resort to silly and petty tactics both privately and publicly. It is said because the have many good traits as well. They seem sincere. I consider the worst moderator as a better friend. But when it comes to moderating that guy needs to look for another job. The other one is full of himself as many of us are. If you disagree with him you are wrong and he is right even though he has been wrong about the current crisis many times in the past. He threatens with bans just as easily as he breaths. I was shocked when I first encountered this. He improved a little over the past year but he just needs a little nudge buy someone and he quickly locks the thread or bans someone. Yeah, that forum does not have my respect. Pity that, just when I thought all SVs were perfect.
The most recent ban there was for publicly criticizing the forum and moderators on another forum (presumably here). That seemed rather odd to me, since they routinely allow criticism of other posters and forums. They apparently take the position that it is wrong to do it to them but it is fine when they do it to others.
In contrast, while Cathinfo allows a lot of latitude in criticizing other posters and forums, I have never seen anyone banned for what he said about Cathinfo on another forum. This seems to me to be a more internally consistent approach.
That is the other thing banning someone for what they said on another forum.
-
I really should not have brought this up. I apologize. But I was angry. Angry in regards to another person being banned. A person who did no wrong. I was defending him though he is quite capable of defending himself. And does not ask my help and may not want it. But I hate to see people bullied, especially when they were not looking for trouble. It was almost as if I "had to" jump in and take my shot. Partly so they will think twice about their uncharitable attitude next time. Partly to right the wrong.
But I apologize for any sinful action I have made. And if in the objective realm I have misrepresented anything. I will say this I have found moderators so infuriating and unfair as I saw on that site. There are a couple moderators there that are normal, but apart from those two, there is one who is overly rigid and another that simply should not be a moderator. If you disagree with one on any unsettled issue pertaining to the current unique circuмstances he demands you retract your statement or face the consequence. I really could not believe it when I first encountered it. I tried my best to get him to grasp the point. He improved some since but still has that way about him at times as he showed recently in regards to my friend. The other, simply should not be a moderator, he does more harm than good to that forum, over and over again, and does not take correction but calls people to be humble when they try to correct him. I do wish he would take his own advice.
Okay. That is it.
I hope I don't post on this topic again but rather on the OP. I shall try to remain silent if someone should come on and try to misrepresent things.
-
Getting back (or at least closer) to the original topic, the real issue is the use of scholastic sources. The proper use is this: A question comes up, people opine one way or another, but suspect that there must be a definitive answer to their question. So they find the appropriate authoritative source, some catechism or papal or conciliar declaration, or at the very least (and especially here when the disputed points are not much (if even at all) discussed in those most conspicuous sources), the approved theologians of the Church, and see what that says. If there still remains some uncertainty, perhaps several could be consulted on the same question. Then, with that knowledge before us either a clear answer emerges and everyone accepts that and incorporates that into their belief system, or else the only thing clear is that there is no real consensus on the question at which point we must accept all opinions as legitimate and none as confirmed.
But as has been observed, this reasonable and proper manner of proceeding on a question can break down in quite some number of ways. One of the ways this can happen is when the scholastic source is ill-used, misquoted or quoted out of context, or applied in some manner which is expressly against the intent of the author. Some years ago I devoted quite some scholastic depth to addressing the quotes used by the followers of Fr. Feeney's denial of Baptism of blood and of desire ( http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html ). But this is a rather sophisticated manner of attack against the truth and somewhat rare - though I know the Modernists have used it on occasion, for example denying that the Aramaic language has distinct words for "many" and "all," or claiming that the Novus Ordo "Eucharistic prayer II" is the "Canon of Hippolytus" when in fact it has absolutely nothing in common with the actual Canon used by Hippolytus (known to scholars today) except for its length, which is rather short. There are other bits of such scholastic dishonesty which the Modernists have used, but most of these are in very obscure areas which most of us ordinary Catholic never see much of.
In our recent fiasco elsewhere we only got a tiny little bit of that with one single actual misquote in which a theologian was made to sound as if something that he would talk about at some length actually did not exist at all. But at the end we did see something else, namely the use of what can only be described as a barrage of irrelevant and off-topic quotes. For example, one of them was about an extraordinary mission. Since no extraordinary mission is ever claimed, why even bring that up at all? And the rest were pretty much the same story. It is as if no one over there was even reading the quotes at all, which leads to the next way things can go astray.
When the sources are clear, and it can be readily verified that they have been properly quoted, on topic, and really saying what response the question raised requires of the theological source, the proper response is to yield to it, since that is the (ordinary) Magisterium of the Church teaching. If the Church teaches it to be so, then it really must be so. If, for example, the Church teaches that it is a visible society and recognizable as being it, then that must be believed. But what do they do? They hide the Church anonymously somewhere in the Novus Ordo - not even among what few Novus-Ordo-approved clerics are openly traditional - but among those whom no one would ever mistake for being a Catholic, even superficially. Is that someone who believes that the Church is a visible society and recognizable as being it? Is that someone who yields to the Magisterium of the Church? is that someone who could possibly retain a right to the title of Catholic?
John, no need to be angry. I thank God for the privilege of being able to make the right enemies. For if they did not hate me, then I should be afraid that God does.
-
Getting back (or at least closer) to the original topic, the real issue is the use of scholastic sources. The proper use is this: A question comes up, people opine one way or another, but suspect that there must be a definitive answer to their question. So they find the appropriate authoritative source, some catechism or papal or conciliar declaration, or at the very least (and especially here when the disputed points are not much (if even at all) discussed in those most conspicuous sources), the approved theologians of the Church, and see what that says. If there still remains some uncertainty, perhaps several could be consulted on the same question. Then, with that knowledge before us either a clear answer emerges and everyone accepts that and incorporates that into their belief system, or else the only thing clear is that there is no real consensus on the question at which point we must accept all opinions as legitimate and none as confirmed.
But as has been observed, this reasonable and proper manner of proceeding on a question can break down in quite some number of ways. One of the ways this can happen is when the scholastic source is ill-used, misquoted or quoted out of context, or applied in some manner which is expressly against the intent of the author. Some years ago I devoted quite some scholastic depth to addressing the quotes used by the followers of Fr. Feeney's denial of Baptism of blood and of desire ( http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html ). But this is a rather sophisticated manner of attack against the truth and somewhat rare - though I know the Modernists have used it on occasion, for example denying that the Aramaic language has distinct words for "many" and "all," or claiming that the Novus Ordo "Eucharistic prayer II" is the "Canon of Hippolytus" when in fact it has absolutely nothing in common with the actual Canon used by Hippolytus (known to scholars today) except for its length, which is rather short. There are other bits of such scholastic dishonesty which the Modernists have used, but most of these are in very obscure areas which most of us ordinary Catholic never see much of.
In our recent fiasco elsewhere we only got a tiny little bit of that with one single actual misquote in which a theologian was made to sound as if something that he would talk about at some length actually did not exist at all. But at the end we did see something else, namely the use of what can only be described as a barrage of irrelevant and off-topic quotes. For example, one of them was about an extraordinary mission. Since no extraordinary mission is ever claimed, why even bring that up at all? And the rest were pretty much the same story. It is as if no one over there was even reading the quotes at all, which leads to the next way things can go astray.
When the sources are clear, and it can be readily verified that they have been properly quoted, on topic, and really saying what response the question raised requires of the theological source, the proper response is to yield to it, since that is the (ordinary) Magisterium of the Church teaching. If the Church teaches it to be so, then it really must be so. If, for example, the Church teaches that it is a visible society and recognizable as being it, then that must be believed. But what do they do? They hide the Church anonymously somewhere in the Novus Ordo - not even among what few Novus-Ordo-approved clerics are openly traditional - but among those whom no one would ever mistake for being a Catholic, even superficially. Is that someone who believes that the Church is a visible society and recognizable as being it? Is that someone who yields to the Magisterium of the Church? is that someone who could possibly retain a right to the title of Catholic?
John, no need to be angry. I thank God for the privilege of being able to make the right enemies. For if they did not hate me, then I should be afraid that God does.
Thanks Griff. The anger passed. If I were viewing that site it would come back again though. It is disappointing when people who pass themselves off as Catholic and when legitimate Catholics lack charity but also are intellectually dishonest and underhanded. Not sure which bugs me most.
Regarding the above it is amazing how confusing things get with people who trust their own intellect and ability to interpret things and to apply it to our own unique circuмstances more than the Church do everything in their power to not let a contrary opinion see the light of day.
I'm not a scholar but I have still not seen refuted the fact that the legitimate [traditional] clergy continued the Church after Vatican 2 but that the Church just hid somewhere.
And what is, perhaps, more amazing is they insist on this and call people heretics who assert a possibility to the contrary, and delete the threads and ban the people whose opinions to the contrary are too convincing.
I have not seen much objection to this here. Can you tell me what the [traditional] Catholic clergy does that does that typically would not be done by someone who was a vagrant acting against divine law and whatever ecclesiastical law that is in force today besides offer Mass for the Faithful and hear their Confessions on a regular basis?
-
Can you tell me what the [traditional] Catholic clergy does that does that typically would not be done by someone who was a vagrant acting against divine law and whatever ecclesiastical law that is in force today besides offer Mass for the Faithful and hear their Confessions on a regular basis?
I was once granted a dispensation from the Friday abstinence from meat (commuted to Saturday), in connection with a "rehearsal dinner" for a wedding. My family and I were also enrolled in the brown scapular (something that requires a regular parish priest) and I was dispensed from a private vow. These things cannot be done by vagrants but only by a true and authorized priest of Holy Mother Church, which my findings show such a traditional priest to be.
-
Can you tell me what the [traditional] Catholic clergy does that does that typically would not be done by someone who was a vagrant acting against divine law and whatever ecclesiastical law that is in force today besides offer Mass for the Faithful and hear their Confessions on a regular basis?
I was once granted a dispensation from the Friday abstinence from meat (commuted to Saturday), in connection with a "rehearsal dinner" for a wedding. My family and I were also enrolled in the brown scapular (something that requires a regular parish priest) and I was dispensed from a private vow. These things cannot be done by vagrants but only by a true and authorized priest of Holy Mother Church, which my findings show such a traditional priest to be.
I was granted the a dispensation for Saint Patrick's day on Friday and for the day after Thanksgiving which is typical rather than throwing out leftover meat.
Is founding seminaries and consecrating altars something that is done by those without normal jurisdiction?
-
I'm not a scholar but I have still not seen refuted the fact that the legitimate [traditional] clergy continued the Church after Vatican 2 but that the Church just hid somewhere.
There are more possibilities.
2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.
2:11 quis enim scit hominum quae sint hominis nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est ita et quae Dei sunt nemo cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei
I once heard about a certain monastery monk. He was charged to sweep his room once a day. Time and time again, the monk's superior would find him sweeping his room multiple times each day. Finally, after some time had past, the superior confronted the monk, telling him that he did not have to sweep his room more than once a day. The monk replied that he was not troubled by the greater burden.
20:1 The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
20:2 And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
20:3 And going about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place idle.
20:4 And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just.
20:5 And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner.
20:6 But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand you here all the day idle?
20:7 They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go you also into my vineyard.
20:8 And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first.
20:9 When therefore they were come, that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
20:10 But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: and they also received every man a penny.
20:11 And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house,
20:12 Saying: These last have worked but one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats.
20:13 But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny?
20:14 Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee.
20:15 Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? is thy eye evil, because I am good?
20:16 So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.
-
I'm not a scholar but I have still not seen refuted the fact that the legitimate [traditional] clergy continued the Church after Vatican 2 but that the Church just hid somewhere.
There are more possibilities.
2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.
2:11 quis enim scit hominum quae sint hominis nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est ita et quae Dei sunt nemo cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei
I once heard about a certain monastery monk. He was charged to sweep his room once a day. Time and time again, the monk's superior would find him sweeping his room multiple times each day. Finally, after some time had past, the superior confronted the monk, telling him that he did not have to sweep his room more than once a day. The monk replied that he was not troubled by the greater burden.
20:1 The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
20:2 And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
20:3 And going about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place idle.
20:4 And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just.
20:5 And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner.
20:6 But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand you here all the day idle?
20:7 They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go you also into my vineyard.
20:8 And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first.
20:9 When therefore they were come, that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
20:10 But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: and they also received every man a penny.
20:11 And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house,
20:12 Saying: These last have worked but one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats.
20:13 But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny?
20:14 Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee.
20:15 Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? is thy eye evil, because I am good?
20:16 So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.
You are right. There is so much we do not know.
-
Is founding seminaries and consecrating altars something that is done by those without normal jurisdiction?
No, that is quite specifically something for those with habitual authority to do, and for that matter so is tonsuring seminarians into the clerical state.
-
You are right. There is so much we do not know.
But there is also much we do know, especially if we actually read the standard theological manuals and take the necessary time to understand them, to reflect on what they say and discern how it would apply today, to weigh varying opinions in the light of current events, and ultimately to draw from them a dogmatic understanding of our current ecclesial circuмstance.
God did not set up a Church of uncertainty but of certainty. That is why infallibility and indefectibility exist, and must always exist, visibly associated exclusively with that which bears the Marks of the Church. Those who treat the theological manuals as though they were just some old fiddle upon which any tune can be played can do this only by seriously misrepresenting or abusing their contents. The longer the theologian is permitted to speak (with extended quotes), the more we can be imbued with his manner of thought. This is why Feeney followers (for example) must always use very short quotes. The context gives away the lie or supplies balance and precision to the statement that couldn't reasonably be fit into the "useful sentence" in the first place. Procure the necessary volumes, read, and study. The more you do the more you can see the answers for yourself. And if you can't afford them or find them for sale anywhere, there are also libraries, and they can also borrow volumes from other libraries which they do not have.
-
You are right. There is so much we do not know.
But there is also much we do know, especially if we actually read the standard theological manuals and take the necessary time to understand them, to reflect on what they say and discern how it would apply today, to weigh varying opinions in the light of current events, and ultimately to draw from them a dogmatic understanding of our current ecclesial circuмstance.
God did not set up a Church of uncertainty but of certainty. That is why infallibility and indefectibility exist, and must always exist, visibly associated exclusively with that which bears the Marks of the Church. Those who treat the theological manuals as though they were just some old fiddle upon which any tune can be played can do this only by seriously misrepresenting or abusing their contents. The longer the theologian is permitted to speak (with extended quotes), the more we can be imbued with his manner of thought. This is why Feeney followers (for example) must always use very short quotes. The context gives away the lie or supplies balance and precision to the statement that couldn't reasonably be fit into the "useful sentence" in the first place. Procure the necessary volumes, read, and study. The more you do the more you can see the answers for yourself. And if you can't afford them or find them for sale anywhere, there are also libraries, and they can also borrow volumes from other libraries which they do not have.
My biggest question on this, now, is addressing the claim that it is Divine Law that a formally Apostolic Bishop, in order to have habitual jurisdiction, must be canonically appointed to "physical territory". On the surface it seems odd to me. I have not read on the topic either way however. Can you help me with this?
-
My biggest question on this, now, is addressing the claim that it is Divine Law that a formally Apostolic Bishop, in order to have habitual jurisdiction, must be canonically appointed to "physical territory". On the surface it seems odd to me. I have not read on the topic either way however. Can you help me with this?
There can't be any intrinsic reason. First of all there were the Apostles. Granted, they were in a very special category, but still, what exclusive territories did any of them ever lay claim to? But then Abbots and others who are bishops over religious orders and the like are also treated like apostolic bishops, normally included in Councils, able to serve as consecrators or co-consecrators of bishops, etc.
Now, auxiliaries are normally given a "titular" diocese, which is one which effectively no longer exists (speaks for the Church in some area where the Church is extinct or at least very nearly so, but also as the product of the splitting and combining of diocesan territories. However, though such auxiliaries go back to the beginning, the lack of any (or enough, once there were actually a few) "titular" dioceses to go around did not stop such auxiliaries from existing or functioning as assistant bishops to some existing bishop who actually ruled the diocese as its last authority (other than the Pope).
Territory is just so strongly entrenched in the practice of the Church that some may simply have forgotten that, as you point out, true jurisdiction is over souls, not land, and that land is merely a simple and practical way to delineate among souls on the arbitrary criteria of where they live.
You often ask about what would happen to all the dioceses if we all had to transfer to another planet. By the same token, suppose the Pope, the cardinals, and bishops were convened in Council, and a nuclear bomb blows it all up, killing everyone present. Then the only bishops left would be some scattered few who were out sick in hospitals or else fading in retirement homes as retired bishops invited to come but who opted not to owing to their declining health. Perhaps there might be only a very few of these, and none or almost none of them aware of any of the other survivors like them. Could the Church continue from that, or would it all be over? Would anyone seriously dispute the duties of the few survivors, even though they be retired, of ill-health, and scarcely able to do much more than find some priest they trust (hopefully rightly) to make a bishop of, probably even unilaterally (no co-consecrators)?
-
My biggest question on this, now, is addressing the claim that it is Divine Law that a formally Apostolic Bishop, in order to have habitual jurisdiction, must be canonically appointed to "physical territory". On the surface it seems odd to me. I have not read on the topic either way however. Can you help me with this?
There can't be any intrinsic reason. First of all there were the Apostles. Granted, they were in a very special category, but still, what exclusive territories did any of them ever lay claim to? But then Abbots and others who are bishops over religious orders and the like are also treated like apostolic bishops, normally included in Councils, able to serve as consecrators or co-consecrators of bishops, etc.
Now, auxiliaries are normally given a "titular" diocese, which is one which effectively no longer exists (speaks for the Church in some area where the Church is extinct or at least very nearly so, but also as the product of the splitting and combining of diocesan territories. However, though such auxiliaries go back to the beginning, the lack of any (or enough, once there were actually a few) "titular" dioceses to go around did not stop such auxiliaries from existing or functioning as assistant bishops to some existing bishop who actually ruled the diocese as its last authority (other than the Pope).
Territory is just so strongly entrenched in the practice of the Church that some may simply have forgotten that, as you point out, true jurisdiction is over souls, not land, and that land is merely a simple and practical way to delineate among souls on the arbitrary criteria of where they live.
You often ask about what would happen to all the dioceses if we all had to transfer to another planet. By the same token, suppose the Pope, the cardinals, and bishops were convened in Council, and a nuclear bomb blows it all up, killing everyone present. Then the only bishops left would be some scattered few who were out sick in hospitals or else fading in retirement homes as retired bishops invited to come but who opted not to owing to their declining health. Perhaps there might be only a very few of these, and none or almost none of them aware of any of the other survivors like them. Could the Church continue from that, or would it all be over? Would anyone seriously dispute the duties of the few survivors, even though they be retired, of ill-health, and scarcely able to do much more than find some priest they trust (hopefully rightly) to make a bishop of, probably even unilaterally (no co-consecrators)?
Thanks Griff. It makes perfect sense.
-
My biggest question on this, now, is addressing the claim that it is Divine Law that a formally Apostolic Bishop, in order to have habitual jurisdiction, must be canonically appointed to "physical territory". On the surface it seems odd to me.
In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209). - Commentary of Canon Law
-
I wonder what Matthew will think of Griff Ruby's views on this issue. Arguing these same views was what got him banned from Te Deum.
-
I wonder what Matthew will think of Griff Ruby's views on this issue. Arguing these same views was what got him banned from Te Deum.
Matthew unlike those on the other forum is intellectually honest and not a tyrant so if he saw something clearly wrong, or something he believed to be clearly wrong he would point it out and back up the contrary with an authoritative source.
If Feeneyism is okay and either side of SV is not banable why would the idea of the Catholic bishops that remained after V2 being the ones that continued the Catholic Church in all her integrity be banable?
-
And by the way, I also consider the SSPX bishops to be real and apostolic bishops of the Church, which is (as I believe someone else once docuмented) also the belief of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais - good for him! So if Matthew were to take exception to the position of (at least) one of his own most respected bishops, that really would be something strange.
-
And by the way, I also consider the SSPX bishops to be real and apostolic bishops of the Church, which is (as I believe someone else once docuмented) also the belief of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais - good for him! So if Matthew were to take exception to the position of (at least) one of his own most respected bishops, that really would be something strange.
It seems the common sense idea that the Bishops who stayed Catholic after V2 continued the Church in all her integrity does not have much opposition here. No one has been called a heretic or banned for being open to such a possibility or believing it.
Some place you are banned for lesser things even though it is very clear you will accept whatever the Church teaches so long as you are convinced the Church does in fact teach it.
That is rather encouraging in comparison to previous encounters.
-
My biggest question on this, now, is addressing the claim that it is Divine Law that a formally Apostolic Bishop, in order to have habitual jurisdiction, must be canonically appointed to "physical territory". On the surface it seems odd to me.
In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209). - Commentary of Canon Law
The difficulty with proposing that supplied jurisdiction resolves the issue is that supplied jurisdiction is not habitual and doesn't give a person true possession of an ecclesiastical office. It's supplied to a person for particular actions at the moment it is needed. The person to whom it's supplied doesn't possess it any time before or after that.
-
The difficulty with proposing that supplied jurisdiction resolves the issue is that supplied jurisdiction is not habitual and doesn't give a person true possession of an ecclesiastical office. It's supplied to a person for particular actions at the moment it is needed. The person to whom it's supplied doesn't possess it any time before or after that.
Supplied jurisdiction does have a lasting effect, though the person exercising a juridical act under its terms didn't possess a lasting (or "habitual") jurisdiction. Picture someone coming to a priest without the necessary applicable "faculties" for confession and absolution. For the one act of the absolution the priest exercises a jurisdiction (supplied) which he dos not otherwise possess, and which disappears the moment the absolution is completed. However, for the penitent who was absolved, the forgiveness lasts, and the state of grace in his soul remains, exactly as with any confession and absolution, for however long he does not fall into serious sin.
It is one thing for a priest or bishop to be without any jurisdiction or faculties, such that every juridical act they do requires this momentary jurisdiction they can use but cannot keep. But if it were a matter of the jurisdiction being supplied for someone to appoint and ordain/consecrate a man to an office over some particular group of Catholics, the office once granted would be habitual, and its authority and jurisdiction habitual, even though the authority to confer it were supplied to the one granting it and disappeared upon the completion of that conferral.
So, just as the power to forgive the sin disappeared upon its forgiveness and absolution, the power to appoint and ordain/consecrate to an office might also disappear upon the completion of the conferral of that office, but the sin remains forgiven, and the office remains continually (or "habitually") held, and would only be lost through some subsequent legitimate act to remove the person or because of heresy or other resignation, even as the sin remains forgiven until a new sin is committed.
When Bp. Tissier de Mallerais wrote about supplied jurisdiction in connection with his apostolicity as a true bishop of the Church, this pertained, not to his individual juridical acts as a bishop (as if he were not in fact apostolic), but the jurisdiction by which Abp. Lefebvre and de Castro-Meyer consecrated him and made him one of the bishops over the SSPX, a perpetual and habitual office held by him. If there were no pope (as we sedevacantists already believe), then the right to have consecrated the bishops was absolute, legally speaking. But in the presence of one taken as "pope," and furthermore having to act against his apparent wishes (for John Paul II being in the state that he was could not be regarded as being "of sound mind and body" and was plainly acting against the good of the Church), this becomes a much more sticky legal situation - imagine having to prove in a court of law that John Paul II was not in a sane or right or papal state of mind when he refused permission to Abp. Lefebvre to consecrate the bishops, I think it could be done and would be right and just, but these things can be quite subjective and subject to a jury's whims - and hence quite properly a matter of "doubt of law or of fact." Supplied jurisdiction resolves this doubt in favor of the SSPX bishops, meaning that they are truly apostolic and possess habitual jurisdiction.
-
But if it were a matter of the jurisdiction being supplied for someone to appoint and ordain/consecrate a man to an office over some particular group of Catholics, the office once granted would be habitual, and its authority and jurisdiction habitual, even though the authority to confer it were supplied to the one granting it and disappeared upon the completion of that conferral.
So, just as the power to forgive the sin disappeared upon its forgiveness and absolution, the power to appoint and ordain/consecrate to an office might also disappear upon the completion of the conferral of that office, but the sin remains forgiven, and the office remains continually (or "habitually") held, and would only be lost through some subsequent legitimate act to remove the person or because of heresy or other resignation, even as the sin remains forgiven until a new sin is committed.
In this hypothesis, are bishops being supplied the power to make new offices?
-
I thought these articles were interesting:
http://www.cmri.org/96prog9.htm
http://www.cmri.org/consecration-bishops-interregna2007.html
-
I thought these articles were interesting:
http://www.cmri.org/96prog9.htm
http://www.cmri.org/consecration-bishops-interregna2007.html
These articles are valuable, but they don't address, or propose, the creation of offices.
-
Territorial jurisdiction is not Divine Law. Their jurisdiction is over souls and not land with boundaries.
Okay please verify or straiten me out.
That makes sense, because Christ didn't carve out the earth for each apostle before he ascended. Therefore, it cannot be a matter of Divine law, but of Canon law, regarding hierarchical territories. Or custom.
-
In common error or in positive and probable doubt of law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum (c. 209). - Commentary of Canon Law
Supplied jurisdiction only happens when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties. For example, in the case of someone receiving the Sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, only then the Church would supply it.
Formal succession requires communion with the Roman Pontiff so even if a Bishop receives valid orders materially, he does not receive them formally. As said before, the Holy Roman Catholic Church is a monarchy; not an oligarchy. The Bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese (territory) unless the Pope places him there. Only the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, can govern by "immediate divine right". Wherever and whenever a Bishop gains authority, it is the Pope who grants it.
-
From the Dictatus Papae of Pope St. Gregory VII:
The Dictates of the Pope
1.That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2.That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3.That he alone can depose or reinstate Bishops.
4.That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5.That the pope may depose the absent.
6.That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7.That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8.That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9.That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10.That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11.That this title [Pope] is unique in the world.
12.That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13.That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14.That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15.That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16.That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17.That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18.That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19.That he himself may be judged by no one.
20.That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21.That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22.That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23.That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24.That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25.That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26.That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27.That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
-
From the Dictatus Papae of Pope St. Gregory VII:
The Dictates of the Pope
1.That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2.That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3.That he alone can depose or reinstate Bishops.
4.That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5.That the pope may depose the absent.
6.That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7.That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8.That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9.That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10.That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11.That this title [Pope] is unique in the world.
12.That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13.That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14.That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15.That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16.That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17.That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18.That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19.That he himself may be judged by no one.
20.That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21.That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22.That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23.That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24.That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25.That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26.That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27.That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
How does #22 line up with the R&R position or even the Ecclesia Dei Reform From Within position? How can we take the ED position seriously when it was born out of the R&R position? Without R&R there would be no ED. Prior to 1988 every priest who insisted on publicly offering the TLM was suspended. So ED only came into existence through the insistence of those clergy and laymen who claimed that Rome had erred in suppressing the TLM. They didn't say it was an error of judgment but that it was an error of doctrine. Which is exactly contrary to #22. Only the SV position is successful in steering clear of a #22 violation. That's why the SV position exists in the first place. To avoid saying that the Roman church has erred. They avoid running afoul of #19 as well by saying that the pope has deposed himself by publicly departing from the faith. And to date, the main line SV position also avoids rashly claiming jurisdiction. As far as I can tell, the SV position has been the most successful traditionalist position with regard to avoiding doctrinal pitfalls. The ED position is the least successful position because it fails to give sufficient explanation for its own existence as well as failing to sufficiently explain how the NO sacraments can be held to be valid in light of the positive doubts introduced by the Conciliar church.
-
I thought these articles were interesting:
http://www.cmri.org/96prog9.htm
http://www.cmri.org/consecration-bishops-interregna2007.html
These articles are valuable, but they don't address, or propose, the creation of offices.
Quite correct. They are a starting point. I fully agree.
-
From the Dictatus Papae of Pope St. Gregory VII:
The Dictates of the Pope
1.That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2.That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3.That he alone can depose or reinstate Bishops.
4.That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5.That the pope may depose the absent.
6.That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7.That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8.That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9.That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10.That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11.That this title [Pope] is unique in the world.
12.That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13.That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14.That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15.That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16.That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17.That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18.That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19.That he himself may be judged by no one.
20.That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21.That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22.That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23.That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24.That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25.That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26.That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27.That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
How does #22 line up with the R&R position or even the Ecclesia Dei Reform From Within position? How can we take the ED position seriously when it was born out of the R&R position? Without R&R there would be no ED. Prior to 1988 every priest who insisted on publicly offering the TLM was suspended. So ED only came into existence through the insistence of those clergy and laymen who claimed that Rome had erred in suppressing the TLM. They didn't say it was an error of judgment but that it was an error of doctrine. Which is exactly contrary to #22. Only the SV position is successful in steering clear of a #22 violation. That's why the SV position exists in the first place. To avoid saying that the Roman church has erred. They avoid running afoul of #19 as well by saying that the pope has deposed himself by publicly departing from the faith. And to date, the main line SV position also avoids rashly claiming jurisdiction. As far as I can tell, the SV position has been the most successful traditionalist position with regard to avoiding doctrinal pitfalls. The ED position is the least successful position because it fails to give sufficient explanation for its own existence as well as failing to sufficiently explain how the NO sacraments can be held to be valid in light of the positive doubts introduced by the Conciliar church.
What is "ED"?
-
How does #22 line up with the R&R position or even the Ecclesia Dei Reform From Within position?
Rather, how does modern sedevacantism square with the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Roman Church? Sedevacantism's "solution", typically, is to deny the problem altogether. The Roman Church is indefectible, therefore the Roman Church has ceased to exist, so that its indefectibility may be preserved! No, indefectibility means some Catholic Cardinals or faithful Roman clergy, at least, (incardinated in the diocese of Rome) will never cease to exist. Msgr. Fenton explains, (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=608) "The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37] ... St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church. " So, how is the local Church of Rome still indefectible, CM, if as you believe, it has completely fallen away from the Faith?
How can we take the ED position seriously when it was born out of the R&R position? Without R&R there would be no ED. Prior to 1988 every priest who insisted on publicly offering the TLM was suspended.
I'm not sure this is accurate, I think there were quite a few Ecclesia Dei kind of groups to whom even Pope Paul VI gave the "Indult" to celebrate the true Mass. Cantarella will know this better than me, but I think SBC had something like an Indult. Speaking for SSPX supporters (quite a few of whom also attend the "Indult", as I would), we object to the notion of an Indult (Indult, of course, means special permission or exemption, which is not required here) in principle because it perpetuates the illusion that the true Mass was ever forbidden. Thanks in large part to Archbishop Lefebvre, a commission of 9 Cardinals under Pope John Paul II studied the matter and found that the true Mass had never been abrogated. ( http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7729#sthash.9GeILuxH.dpuf) "The commission met in December 1986. Eight of nine cardinals answered that the New Mass had not abrogated the Old Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating Mass according to the Missal of St Pius V ... In this context, it should be noted that the Holy See does recognize the right of the priest to celebrate the traditional Mass; this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of their bishops, the Roman Curia always nullifies the penalty whenever the cases are appealed." So, Indult is a misnomer because no one needs an Indult to attend the true Mass.
Again, forces in Rome prevented this from having its effect, until Pope Benedict XVI finally acknowledged before the whole Church that the true Mass was "in principle, always permitted". That may seem a late vindication, but it proves the importance and necessity of resisting a false impression given by certain churchmen. The impious Mason Bugnini wanted to obtain a decree stating the true Mass had been forbidden, he was refused. I think many sedevacantists discount the possibility of the Ecclesia Dei position too easily. I mainly disagree with ED on the best tactical approach to restore Tradition. Trying to restore doctrinal orthodoxy and traditional orthopraxis parish by parish is not in itself something bad, but far better and much more necessary for traditional Catholics to insist that Rome restores the true Mass throughout the Church. Summorum Pontificuм was a first step in that necessary direction and though it changed very little for the Society as such, it vastly benefited the Ecclesia Dei groups, diocesan TLMs, seminarians in the mainstream Church as well as a generation of new Catholics, who unlike their immediate ancestors, did not grow up in complete ignorance of the true Mass thanks to it and thus have a better chance of keeping the Faith.
-
How does #22 line up with the R&R position or even the Ecclesia Dei Reform From Within position?
Rather, how does modern sedevacantism square with the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Roman Church? Sedevacantism's "solution", typically, is to deny the problem altogether. The Roman Church is indefectible, therefore the Roman Church has ceased to exist, so that its indefectibility may be preserved! No, indefectibility means some Catholic Cardinals or faithful Roman clergy, at least, (incardinated in the diocese of Rome) will never cease to exist. Msgr. Fenton explains, (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=608) "The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37] ... St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church. " So, how is the local Church of Rome still indefectible, CM, if as you believe, it has completely fallen away from the Faith?
What? You are R&R are you not? What are you resisting? The SV position on the other hand does not posit the failure of the Roman Church. Rather it posits the failure of individual members of the clergy. The only prominent SV I know who claims that every member of the Roman clergy could defect is Fr. Cekada but I don't think he was claiming that the Roman Church ceased to exist. In any case, most (the vast majority) would not claim that the Roman Church has ceased to exist. So while the SVs have the problem of explaining where the Church is, the R&R has a much bigger problem of explaining how the magisterium of the Church could lead hundreds of millions of souls into error. How does that rescue the doctrine of indefectibility? You are projecting the weakest point of your own position upon the SVs. It is silly.
How can we take the ED position seriously when it was born out of the R&R position? Without R&R there would be no ED. Prior to 1988 every priest who insisted on publicly offering the TLM was suspended.
I'm not sure this is accurate, I think there were quite a few Ecclesia Dei kind of groups to whom even Pope Paul VI gave the "Indult" to celebrate the true Mass. Cantarella will know this better than me, but I think SBC had something like an Indult.
No they did not. The SBC in Still River split after Fr. Feeney's death. One group became NO, saying the NO Mass in Latin and the other group was R&R and suspended. The suspended group split again and a group moved up to New Hampshire. They also were suspended. The two suspended groups have only been reintegrated in the last 10 years. I know of not one single clergyman in all of North America who continued to say the TLM publicly without also being suspended. Some, I am sure said it privately without incurring a public penalty. But a Catholic in North America who wished to hear only the TLM was forced to find a suspended priest who was still offering it. Now try to tell me that the R&R's Roman Church had not defected. The TLM was effectively outlawed by the ordinary magisterium of the Church. The only ones who didn't outlaw it, were suspended (i.e. not a part of the R&R magisterium). You can claim that it was unjust and therefore it never happened but then where does that leave you as far as adherence to traditional Catholic ecclesiology?
Speaking for SSPX supporters (quite a few of whom also attend the "Indult", as I would), we object to the notion of an Indult (Indult, of course, means special permission or exemption, which is not required here) in principle because it perpetuates the illusion that the true Mass was ever forbidden.
I agree, the Mass was never forbidden. It was never forbidden because those who enforced the ban against it were not actually members of the Church and therefore they had no authority to suppress it. If they were members of the Church, then the Mass was effectively suppressed even if it was never officially suppressed because every priest who attempted to celebrate it publicly was suspended. It is 1984 double-think to say that the Mass was never abrogated. In 1970 it was abrogated and in 1986 it was un-abrogated retroactively. War is peace. Whatever.
The nine cardinals unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating Mass according to the Missal of St Pius V ...
Paul VI would object. He suspended Archbishop Lefebvre. I'm sure he would like to come back and suspend those 9 cardinals too.
In this context, it should be noted that the Holy See does recognize the right of the priest to celebrate the traditional Mass; this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of their bishops, the Roman Curia always nullifies the penalty whenever the cases are appealed." So, Indult is a misnomer because no one needs an Indult to attend the true Mass.
This is just completely unrealistic fantasy. It's actually insulting to all those priests who suffered through suspensions. As if it was all just a misunderstanding. The very same Curia that nullifies the penalties keeps the bishops in place who continue to effectively prevent Catholics from attending the TLM. It's the same Curia that admitted that the words of consecration in the NOM were wrong. The same Curia that concocted, approved and had the "pope" sign off on a new formula for episcopal consecration which does not meet the minimal standard set forth by Pope Pius XII.
Again, forces in Rome prevented this from having its effect, until Pope Benedict XVI finally acknowledged before the whole Church that the true Mass was "in principle, always permitted".
What forces? Was it not the same Curia that lifted suspensions? But did they lift the suspensions of the SSPX? You just said they always lift the suspensions, did you not? What happened with the SSPX? They are still suspended. Is it just a misunderstanding?
That may seem a late vindication, but it proves the importance and necessity of resisting a false impression given by certain churchmen. The impious Mason Bugnini wanted to obtain a decree stating the true Mass had been forbidden, he was refused.
Because we would all be SVs now wouldn't we? The smarter freemasons understood that folks like you would go out from under them if they acted too rashly and openly.
-
So while the SVs have the problem of explaining where the Church is, the R&R has a much bigger problem of explaining how the magisterium of the Church could lead hundreds of millions of souls into error.
I would actually argue that, in the end, both sides have the same question.
-
So while the SVs have the problem of explaining where the Church is, the R&R has a much bigger problem of explaining how the magisterium of the Church could lead hundreds of millions of souls into error.
I would actually argue that, in the end, both sides have the same question.
Yes. I would say that there is no safe (or neutral) position. No matter what position one takes in this crisis (no exception for the "sede-doubtist") one assumes a certain level of uncertainty and risk. I distrust anyone who is so certain of their position that they will admit of no possibility of being wrong. On the other hand I admire those who while willing to admit the possibility of being wrong they are nevertheless acting decisively. That's how good generals have to act during wars. They can't be absolutely certain about everything but they do have to be decisive. A counter example is General McClellan of the Union army in 1861-62. I see the R&R position as indecisive and imprudently cautious. It unnecessarily risks the loss of souls.
-
So while the SVs have the problem of explaining where the Church is, the R&R has a much bigger problem of explaining how the magisterium of the Church could lead hundreds of millions of souls into error.
I would actually argue that, in the end, both sides have the same question.
Wherever you have a true Catholic bishop trying to be in communion with the Papacy, you have the Catholic Church. Very visibly.
-
So while the SVs have the problem of explaining where the Church is, the R&R has a much bigger problem of explaining how the magisterium of the Church could lead hundreds of millions of souls into error.
I would actually argue that, in the end, both sides have the same question.
Wherever you have a true Catholic bishop trying to be in communion with the Papacy, you have the Catholic Church. Very visibly.
But the Papacy must be certain otherwise what seems to be visible is not really. It is merely a mirage. Most on this forum are not certain that this is a true papacy as shown by their words/actions.
-
So while the SVs have the problem of explaining where the Church is, the R&R has a much bigger problem of explaining how the magisterium of the Church could lead hundreds of millions of souls into error.
I would actually argue that, in the end, both sides have the same question.
Yes. I would say that there is no safe (or neutral) position. No matter what position one takes in this crisis (no exception for the "sede-doubtist") one assumes a certain level of uncertainty and risk. I distrust anyone who is so certain of their position that they will admit of no possibility of being wrong. On the other hand I admire those who while willing to admit the possibility of being wrong they are nevertheless acting decisively. That's how good generals have to act during wars. They can't be absolutely certain about everything but they do have to be decisive. A counter example is General McClellan of the Union army in 1861-62. I see the R&R position as indecisive and imprudently cautious. It unnecessarily risks the loss of souls.
I agree with what you have said here. However, that really wasn't my point. I was trying to point out that both sides in effect don't truly have the answer to the question "Where is the Church?". Usually that is ascribed to the sedevacantists, but when the SSPX and R&R have the "problem of explaining how the magisterium of the Church could lead hundreds of millions of souls into error", they too have to answer that question because the true Church does not do such a thing.
-
No they did not. The SBC in Still River split after Fr. Feeney's death. One group became NO, saying the NO Mass in Latin and the other group was R&R and suspended. The suspended group split again and a group moved up to New Hampshire. They also were suspended. The two suspended groups have only been reintegrated in the last 10 years. I know of not one single clergyman in all of North America who continued to say the TLM publicly without also being suspended. Some, I am sure said it privately without incurring a public penalty. But a Catholic in North America who wished to hear only the TLM was forced to find a suspended priest who was still offering it. Now try to tell me that the R&R's Roman Church had not defected. The TLM was effectively outlawed by the ordinary magisterium of the Church. The only ones who didn't outlaw it, were suspended (i.e. not a part of the R&R magisterium). You can claim that it was unjust and therefore it never happened but then where does that leave you as far as adherence to traditional Catholic ecclesiology?
Please show us the legal docuмent from the Holy See in which the Traditional Latin Mass was actually forbidden.
Where is it?
-
Please show us the legal docuмent from the Holy See in which the Traditional Latin Mass was actually forbidden.
Where is it?
Conferentiarum Episcopalium, 28 October 1974, otherwise known as the "Note on the obligation to use the new roman missal" There are reports of the same being directed (apparently only verbally) as early as 1971, but by 1974, with so many clerics having "dragged their feet" about going over to the liturgical new inventions and innovations, the boom was finally lowered all the world over with this docuмent in 1974. It states:
With regard to the Roman Missal: when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal - or part of it, such as the Order of the Mass - must be used in its territory, from then on Mass may not be celebrated, whether in Latin or in the vernacular, save according to the Rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 7 April 1969.
It goes on to permit an exception only for elderly priests who (a) must still use the 1962 Missal - as further corrupted by minor legislation in 1965 and 1967 (the "much less" modernized "Mass" which Padre Pio begged to be excused from ever having to repeat), and (b) who furthermore do it without a congregation: ("Ordinaries may not grant it for Masses celebrated with a congregation"). Finally, admitting the unmistakable break with Tradition and immemorial custom: "What has been said ... does hold against any pretext of even an immemorial custom" So there it was that the Catholic Mass was actually forbidden by the ex-Catholic Vatican apparatus, and at the clear direction of Paul VI its leader!
-
I just found the coolest thing I have read from a Theologian. Griff knows this, but for those who do not:
Why Public MATERIAL Heretics are outside the Church.
Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).
By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.
-
Please show us the legal docuмent from the Holy See in which the Traditional Latin Mass was actually forbidden.
Where is it?
Conferentiarum Episcopalium, 28 October 1974, otherwise known as the "Note on the obligation to use the new roman missal" There are reports of the same being directed (apparently only verbally) as early as 1971, but by 1974, with so many clerics having "dragged their feet" about going over to the liturgical new inventions and innovations, the boom was finally lowered all the world over with this docuмent in 1974. It states:
With regard to the Roman Missal: when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal - or part of it, such as the Order of the Mass - must be used in its territory, from then on Mass may not be celebrated, whether in Latin or in the vernacular, save according to the Rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 7 April 1969.
Since when the episcopal conferences have the authority to abrogate a Mass for use of the Latin Rite?
In the cited passage from this docuмent, there is clearly a condition attached to the directive (see highlight). Namely, that the Conference of Bishops had to approve their own vernacular versions of the New Roman Missals. There is not a word here about the Tridentine Mass being actually forbidden nor the ecclesiastical penalties a priest who dared say it would bring upon himself.
This should be legally docuмented somewhere. Given the gravity of the situation, "verbally" does not count. You are presenting a single docuмent (with no link) for such a serious accusation: that the Holy See legally forbid the Tridentine Latin Mass everywhere in the world. This cited docuмent seems just to be part of the implementation of the Novus Ordo Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI, (not necessarily the prohibition of the TLM), who did not touch nor change the Tridentine Mass but introduced a completely brand New Rite. By the way, I do not share the SSPX's emphasis on the "True Mass" and the liturgical reforms. For me, the crisis in the Church is that of dogma, and not liturgy. Doctrine comes before liturgy and the inferior Novus Ordo Mass is just a symptom of a much deeper doctrinal disease, so I am not that invested in this topic of the 'True Mass' vs. the Novus Ordo Mass.
Now, there was a study by nine cardinals many years ago that concluded the Tridentine Mass was never actually abrogated and that Pope Paul VI never gave the Bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the traditional rite of Mass:
Traditional Latin Mass Never Forbidden
https://www.olrl.org/new_mass/latinmass_cfn.shtml
-
Here is more from that docuмent, found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/845291/replies?c=12
and here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=47nAmAHY9p8C&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=%22Note+on+the+obligation+to+use+the+new+roman+missal%22&source=bl&ots=V1t7WKzaBX&sig=BW06242J91ut_-1fgXLSnMbWTds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIrt_1k-eRyQIVFPpjCh2PggrH#v=onepage&q=%22Note%20on%20the%20obligation%20to%20use%20the%20new%20roman%20missal%22&f=false
"With regard to the regulations issued by this sacred congregation in favor of priests who, on account of advanced years or infirm health, find it difficult to use the new Order of the Roman Missal or Mass Lectionary: it is clear that an ordinary may grant permission to use, in whole or in part, the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, with the changes introduced by the Decrees of 1965 and 1967. [Ed.: The Order of Mass and the rite to be observed in the celebration of Mass: Ordo missae et ritus servandus in celebratione Missae was established on 27 Jan., 1965. It incorporated the changes introduced in the Mass by the First General Instruction on the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Inter oecuмenici. "Changes to be made in the Order of the Mass: Variationes in ordinem missae inducendae," was published on 18 May 1967. It added the changes introduced in the Mass by the Second General Instruction, Tres abhinc annos.] But this permission can only be granted for Masses celebrated without a congregation. Ordinaries may not grant it for Masses celebrated with a congregation. Ordinaries, both religious and local, should rather endeavor to secure the acceptance of the Order of Mass of the New Roman Missal by priests and laity. They should see to it that priests and laity, by dint of greater effort and with greater reverence comprehend the treasures of divine wisdom and of litugical and pastoral teaching with it contains. What has been said does not apply to officially recognized non-Roman rites, but it does hold against any pretext of even an immemorial custom."
FOund the whole thing here: http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2007_07_09_archive.html
NOTE ON THE OBLIGATION TO USE THE NEW ROMAN MISSAL
S.C.D.W., Conferentiarum Episcopalium*, 28 October, 1974
This sacred congregation, in a Note published on 14 June, 1971, and approved by the Supreme Pontiff, defined the role of episcopal conferences in the preparation of vernacular versions of liturgical books and set out the regulations for obtaining their confirmation by the Holy See. Gradually, the employment of the vernacular versions spread everywhere to such an extent that, enough time having elapsed, it is clear that the work is almost complete.
With regard to the Roman Missal: when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal—or of a part of it, such as the Order of the Mass—must be used in its territory, from then on Mass may not be celebrated, whether in Latin or in the vernacular, save according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 7 April, 1969.
With regard to the regulations issued by this sacred congregation in favor of priests who, on account of advanced years or infirm health, find it difficult to use the new Order of the Roman Missal or the Mass Lectionary: it is clear that an ordinary may grant permission to use, in whole or in part, the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, with the changes introduced by the Decrees of 1965 and 1967.b But this permission can only be granted for Masses celebrated without a congregation. Ordinaries may not grant it for Masses celebrated with a congregation. Ordinaries, both religious and local, should rather endeavor to secure the acceptance of the Order of the Mass of the new Roman Missal by priests and laity. They should see to it that priests and laity, by dint of greater effort and with greater reverence comprehend the treasures of divine wisdom and of liturgical and pastoral teaching which it contains. What has been said does not apply to officially recognized non-Roman rites, but it does hold against any pretext of even an immemorial custom.
a.
Translated by A.F. from the Latin text in Notitiae, Nov. 1974, p.
353
b.
The Order of Mass and the rite to be observed in the celebration
of Mass: Ordo missae et ritus servandus in celebratione Missae was
published on 27 Jan. 1965. It incorporated the changes introduced
in the Mass by the First General Instruction on the Implementation
of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Inter oecuмenici,
"Changes to be made in the Order of the Mass: Variationes in
ordinem missae inducendae," was published on 18 May 1967. It
added the changes introduced in the Mass by the Second General
Instruction, Tres abhinc armos.
-
Many thanks for the complete text, Gregory I. However, the question remains:
With regard to the Roman Missal: when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal—or of a part of it, such as the Order of the Mass—must be used in its territory, from then on Mass may not be celebrated, whether in Latin or in the vernacular, save according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 7 April, 1969.
This sets up a condition for the directive: The 1962 edition of the Roman Missal was not to be used "when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal must be used in its territory...."
But a Conference of Bishops have no power whatsoever to abrogate the TLM, so where is the proof that Pope Paul VI actually gave the Bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the Traditional Rite of Mass? The ecclesiastical procedures and penalties associated with it are nowhere to be found in any legal docuмent proposed by the Holy See.
-
Many thanks for the complete text, Gregory I. However, the question remains:
With regard to the Roman Missal: when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal—or of a part of it, such as the Order of the Mass—must be used in its territory, from then on Mass may not be celebrated, whether in Latin or in the vernacular, save according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 7 April, 1969.
This sets up a condition for the directive: "when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal..."
But a Conference of Bishops have no power whatsoever to abrogate the TLM, so where is the proof that Pope Paul VI actually gave the Bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the Traditional Rite of Mass? The ecclesiastical procedures and penalties associated with it are nowhere to be found in any legal docuмent proposed by the Holy See.
With regard to the regulations issued by this sacred congregation in favor of priests who, on account of advanced years or infirm health, find it difficult to use the new Order of the Roman Missal or the Mass Lectionary: it is clear that an ordinary may grant permission to use, in whole or in part, the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, with the changes introduced by the Decrees of 1965 and 1967.b But this permission can only be granted for Masses celebrated without a congregation. Ordinaries may not grant it for Masses celebrated with a congregation. Ordinaries, both religious and local, should rather endeavor to secure the acceptance of the Order of the Mass of the new Roman Missal by priests and laity. They should see to it that priests and laity, by dint of greater effort and with greater reverence comprehend the treasures of divine wisdom and of liturgical and pastoral teaching which it contains. What has been said does not apply to officially recognized non-Roman rites, but it does hold against any pretext of even an immemorial custom.
There.
-
Many thanks for the complete text, Gregory I. However, the question remains:
With regard to the Roman Missal: when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal—or of a part of it, such as the Order of the Mass—must be used in its territory, from then on Mass may not be celebrated, whether in Latin or in the vernacular, save according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 7 April, 1969.
This sets up a condition for the directive: "when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal..."
But a Conference of Bishops have no power whatsoever to abrogate the TLM, so where is the proof that Pope Paul VI actually gave the Bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the Traditional Rite of Mass? The ecclesiastical procedures and penalties associated with it are nowhere to be found in any legal docuмent proposed by the Holy See.
With regard to the regulations issued by this sacred congregation in favor of priests who, on account of advanced years or infirm health, find it difficult to use the new Order of the Roman Missal or the Mass Lectionary: it is clear that an ordinary may grant permission to use, in whole or in part, the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, with the changes introduced by the Decrees of 1965 and 1967.b But this permission can only be granted for Masses celebrated without a congregation. Ordinaries may not grant it for Masses celebrated with a congregation. Ordinaries, both religious and local, should rather endeavor to secure the acceptance of the Order of the Mass of the new Roman Missal by priests and laity. They should see to it that priests and laity, by dint of greater effort and with greater reverence comprehend the treasures of divine wisdom and of liturgical and pastoral teaching which it contains. What has been said does not apply to officially recognized non-Roman rites, but it does hold against any pretext of even an immemorial custom.
There.
No, Gregory, it is really not there. This is, as the name implies, just a "NOTE ON THE OBLIGATION TO USE THE NEW ROMAN MISSAL". This is not a legal prohibition of the Tridentine Latin Mass issued by the Holy See binding the Universal Church. Pope Benedict XVI specifically said that it had not been abrogated, and his statement has much more weight than Ubipetrus'.
In the spring of 1989, a report appeared in the June/July issue of The Fatima Crusader stating that a Papal Commission of nine Cardinals determined that the Traditional Mass has never been suppressed.
The report declared that in 1986, the Holy Father appointed a commission of nine Cardinals to examine the legal status of the traditional rite of Mass, commonly known as the "Tridentine Mass". The commission of Cardinals included Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palaz-zini, and Tomko was instructed to examine two questions:
1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass?
2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?
The Commission, the account stated, unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the traditional rite of Mass.
Regarding the second question: The Commission stated that priests cannot be obligated to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private.
https://www.olrl.org/new_mass/latinmass_cfn.shtml
-
This, a thousand times this:
But a Conference of Bishops have no power whatsoever to abrogate the TLM, so where is the proof that Pope Paul VI actually gave the Bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the Traditional Rite of Mass? The ecclesiastical procedures and penalties associated with it are nowhere to be found in any legal docuмent proposed by the Holy See.
-
This seems to depend upon what one means by a "legal" prohibition against the Mass. Certainly before God, there can never be any actual prohibition against any Mass that God Himself mandated to the Church, Tridentine or Eastern Rite, etc. But this would be the only possible basis (other than some other subsequent and unknown and unidentified "abrogation") for rejecting the "Note" since it clearly identifies itself as an "obligation," meaning that it was intended to be binding, and history bears out that it was so taken by every Vatican apparatus "hierarchical" member who was conscious of it, from Paul VI on down.
Opposition to what the "note" says bases itself on the fact that Divine Law could never forbid the Mass, and so therefore (taking the Vatican apparatus as though it were the Church) it "could not" have meant what it actually said. But as the Vatican apparatus is patently not the Church and in fact nothing more than a purely man-made organization capable of no more than mere secular power, it is therefore in fact perfectly capable of mandating what God forbids, or forbidding what God mandates, as much so in fact as any State which has ever persecuted the Church in all of history.
As the "Note" explicitly states (and it had the full and unconditional support of Paul VI), the "bishops" had every power and right to prohibit the Mass, but also no power to permit it (except were said without a congregation). That is why the various Indults were needed so as to carve out exceptions to it.
But then as traditional priests were running out of other excuses to avoid the new forms (e. g. "We are far too poor here to buy new liturgical books, so we just keep using what we have here on hand...") and as such lay organizations as Una Voce arose (which was in the beginning far more hard-lining than it came to be later on under Michael Davies), the Catholic Mass became a celebrated cause within the Church, "It is the Mass that Matters" and "We worship as you once did..." In a manner of speaking, the (true) Mass truly was the real Church's "banner." Indults began to appear and knowledge of this "note" all fell into the Orwellian memory hole, with many outright denying that the "note" had ever existed.
What did the famous "nine cardinals" think of this note? Were they even aware of it? It seems inconceivable that they might not have known of it, but their failure to make any reference to it in their published findings does allow one to wonder. I can't imagine them arguing with each other over whether the "note" actually existed; if one knew of it then the all knew of it, and therefore would have to have formulated some response to it, at least among themselves within their deliberations on the subject. But maybe none of them knew of it? In that (latter and unlikely) case might not their conclusions have been different if they had known of it?
Racking my brains on this I can come up with several possible scenarios:
1) They all really didn't know of it - in which case we must fault their research.
2) They did know of it but decided not to regard it as applicable in some sense - in which case we must also fault them for not having explained this serious contradiction. Having rejected it, one then must posit several possible explanations:
2a) They decided that since it attempted to usurp and supplant an ancient and long established immemorial custom, and furthermore one tied to a very basic obligation of Faith, namely to assist at Mass all Sundays and holy days, it had thereby overreached the possible scope of its intended authority (gone ultra-vires) and as such was therefore null and void from the get-go.
2b) They may have known of some abrogation of the same which had since taken place, but of which the rest of us have no knowledge.
2c) They may have seen the Indults (1971 and 1984) as evidence that it was not any "absolute" rule, in that exceptions could, at least at times anyway, be permitted.
2d) Given that the first Indult (1971) had already been granted to Cardinal Heenan of parts of England and Wales, and was already in place and apparently still in force even after the promulgation of this "note" in 1974, the prohibition against the Mass was never actually quite universal.
2e) "in public" and "with a congregation" might not be taken as meaning exactly the same thing, and "in private" may not necessarily imply that full degree of privacy that a priest would observe, for example when using the toilet - "in private" could also mean in his own private residence along with whatever friends and family members as might be present at the time. It is an interesting fact that there were actually many such priests who "said the old Mass privately" in their own priestly residence, and even with quite a great many persons also assisting at his Mass, but still qualify as being "without a congregation" meaning "without his regular (parish) congregation." This is how many Catholic Masses said in funeral chapels and rented hotel rooms first came about. So perhaps "in public" could be taken as being any time "when not as absolutely alone as he would be when using the toilet," insofar as other persons may indeed be present and participating. The nine cardinals might possibly have been aware of that "well-attended private Mass" practice which was going on.
-
This seems to depend upon what one means by a "legal" prohibition against the Mass. Certainly before God, there can never be any actual prohibition against any Mass that God Himself mandated to the Church, Tridentine or Eastern Rite, etc. But this would be the only possible basis (other than some other subsequent and unknown and unidentified "abrogation") for rejecting the "Note" since it clearly identifies itself as an "obligation," meaning that it was intended to be binding, and history bears out that it was so taken by every Vatican apparatus "hierarchical" member who was conscious of it, from Paul VI on down.
There is a distinction between being abrogated and being suspended. We know that the Tridentine Latin Mass could not ever be "abrogated" insofar as it is a valid Latin Rite. The question remains whether it was suspended or prohibited, in what specific territories and for what causes, given that the cited "Note on the Obligation to Use the New Roman Missal" attaches as a condition for the directive that the Episcopal Conferences determine the vernacular version of the Roman Missal to be used in each territory.
Now, where is this docuмent, Conferentiarum Episcopalium even found? I could not find an official copy. Do you have it? For it to be a legal docuмent from the Holy See, binding the Universal Church, one would suppose it could be easily found in the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship archive but it seems there is not there and the nine Cardinals' research does not make mention of it.
-
Now, where is this docuмent, Conferentiarum Episcopalium even found? I could not find an official copy. Do you have it? For it to be a legal docuмent from the Holy See, binding the Universal Church, one would suppose it could be easily found in the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship archive but it seems there is not there and the nine Cardinals' research does not make mention of it.
This certainly is an interesting example of the Orwellian "memory hole" which the real Church could never do, but which any organization which is not actually the Church would be quite capable of - hence another reason why it is that no Catholic could ever - in good conscience - dare tp trust it for anything whatsoever.
I have it in hard copy in the book titled "Vatican Collection Volume 1: Vatican Council II - The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Docuмents," General Editor Austin Flannery, O. P., the 1988 Revised Edition, published by the Costello Publishing Company, P. O. Box 9, Northport, NY 11768, in chapter 25, page 281-282. And it reads in full precisely as others (Gregory I) posted it. Looking up the acronym "S. C. D. W." which identifies the source, that is explained on page xii of the same volume as being the "Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (had been part of S. C. R. [q. v.] until 1969: see A. 26): merged with S. C. D. S. to form S. C. S. D. W., q. v., in 1975)
Presumably, the docuмent has since then been expunged from all Vatican records (unless maybe some secret archive), but my hardcopy and the ability of others to find its text as well demonstrate its one time existence. Or perhaps if you look hard enough it might still be found, somewhere.